The Philosophy of Science, Continued

Exegeting this vacuous statement we find little more than self serving nonsense carefully tailored to shore up the wobbly theory of evolution while discarding creationism.  But, intrinsic in this unfounded assertion is one of three possible assumptions:

1)  Science has determined incontrovertibly that God does not exist; or

2)  If God does exist, "science" has determined that He is an absentee landlord unwilling or incapable of intervening in the physical universe, or

3)  Even if God does exist and did intervene in nature, it is "scientific" to ignore reality. 

One searches vainly for a scientific experiment which can demonstrate either of the first two propositions.  The third possibility, that "science" is best served by ignoring reality, is distressing indeed.

The privilege of dictating presuppositions is an unbeatable home field advantage.  However, it betrays the reality of evolutionary "science."  It is not a science at all.  It is a religious philosophy.  Because it cannot defend itself in the arena of scientific scrutiny and dialogue, it must be received as intuitively true, or supported by self serving paradigms dependent on unprovable and highly questionable presuppositions.  In other words, "God did not create the universe because it is unscientific to believe that God created the universe."  This is not only circular reasoning, it is an assertion of faith, and an assertion of blind faith at that.

Let's weigh this statement against the classic tests of a scientific theory or research program.  The most basic characteristic of science is no longer the measure of the empirical evidence supporting a theory.  Neither is a theory any longer evaluated by methodological considerations--falsifiability (whether the theory made bold predictions or simply made ad hoc adjustments to accommodate new data).  The only test remaining is simplicism, the intrinsic elegance, beauty, economy or symmetry of a theory.  And it is here that we see the naked truth about the presuppositions held by these august scholars.  In the mind of these distinguished scientists, the system possessing the greatest elegance and beauty is one distinguished by the "reliance upon naturalistic explanations!"  This is the hallmark of modern science.  Something is scientific only if it presupposes that God either does not exist, or, at the very least, that he has never intervened in history.  Indeed.  One unschooled in these higher scientific principles might easily mistake the statement for theology rather than science.  Fortunately, the Academy is there to reassure the skeptics that their statement is purely scientific!  Unfortunately, the Academy does not reveal what experimental evidence it has to support this amazing declaration.  The reader is uncertain whether this bold pronouncement is falsifiable, or simply a product of the self evolved powers of divination of these hopeful scholars.

But the academy has presented itself with an even bigger problem.  It was seen that the heuristic of Ptolemy's research program was the exhalation of mathematics over theology.  This naturalistic heuristic (alleged by the academy to be so central to the scientific method) produced a geocentric universe with the earth as the center.  By contrast, Copernicus' research program was motivated by a theological heuristic, an attempt to restore and rejuvenate the Platonic heuristic which exalted the perfection of uniform circular motion.  There was no "naturalistic explanation" for why uniform circular motion was the "most perfect", only the theological conviction that a God of beauty, logic and order would, as the Creator, manifest His inner attributes in His creation.  Starting from this heuristic, Copernicus posited a heliocentric universe--one with the sun at the center.  If one were therefore to accept the Academy's reformulated definition of science, than by the Academy's own logic, he would have to reject the helio-centric universe of Copernicus and return to the geocentric universe to be "scientific."  The prospect is troubling indeed.

In its amicus curiae brief, the Academy went on to say:

"Creation -science" is thus manifestly a device designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution.  The dualistic mode of analysis and negative argumentation employed to accomplish this dilution is, moreover, antithetical to the scientific method.

Let's examine this statement.  " 'Creation -science' is thus manifestly a device designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution."  Indeed.  When two competing theories or research programs exist, e.g. Ptolemy's vs. Copernicus', the advances by one of them will necessarily dilute the persuasiveness of the other.  That is why we no longer believe in a geocentric universe.

The Academy's whining that creationism is diluting the persuasiveness of the evolutionary theory is about as logical as the owner of a McDonalds franchise whining that a Burger King has moved in down the street cutting into his market share.  The market place is competitive, and only the fittest survive.  Evolutionary scientists lack the backbone to compete in the free market of ideas.  In this, evolution has at least made one prediction consistent with the theory!  By lobbying the Supreme Court to perpetuate its monopoly status, it highlights that the theory has grown soft through lack of competition.  It is now being stalked by the hungry predators of creationism.  If it should stray too far from the protection afforded by the Supreme Court, it is destined for extinction!

The academy's foolishness continues,  "The dualistic mode of analysis and negative argumentation employed to accomplish this dilution is, moreover, antithetical to the scientific method."  The "dualistic mode" simply means an either/or proposition.  It is an expression of the law of non-contradiction, the most fundamental law of all logic and mathematics.  Either mater is eternally existent, or mater is not eternally existent.  This is the law of non-contradiction.  Complex life forms either came about by random chance, or by design.  Either Ptolemy's geocentricity was true, or Ptolemy's geocentricity was not true.  Geocentricism and heliocentricism cannot be true at the same time.  They are mutually exclusive.  Creationism and evolution cannot be true at the same time, they are mutually exclusive.  Either creationism is correct, or evolution is correct.  It is difficult to understand how a "dualistic mode of analysis," the most fundamental axiom of logic and mathematics, has suddenly become "antithetical to the scientific method."  It seemed to work quite nicely in the Copernican Revolution!  Alas, perhaps in the modern age, science is no longer served by a market place of ideas, nor bedrock principles of logic.  According to the National Academy of Science, ideological monopolies and irrationality have become the foundations of modern science.

Then there is the ostensibly unscientific nature of "negative argumentation."  Although specific scientific evidence will be discussed in a following chapter, it is necessary at this point to address one issue.  Darwin's theory predicted a spectrum of continuous transitional forms.  (This made Darwin's theory scientific in great measure. . . for it was falsifiable.  It made a bold prediction subject to falsification.  The fossil record could either confirm or falsify his prediction.)  As it has turned out, the fossil record has falsified Darwin's theory.  There is not a continuous spectrum of transitional forms.  In fact, with over a million fossils in the British Museum, there is not one single transitional form!  The "negative argumentation" of creationists is simply to observe that the absence empirical evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record.  Darwin's theory has been falsified by the fossil record.  Until it proved inconvenient to the pundits of evolutionary theory, empiricism, falsifiability and simplicism were at one time the sine qua non of the scientific method.  Not only have empiricism and falsificationism been removed from the realm of "the most basic characteristic[s] of science," (supra), the Academy now announces to a watching world that empiricism and falsificationism have become "antithetical to the scientific method"%u2014at least when used by creation-scientists "to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution."  This, of course, leaves one wondering exactly what is left of the scientific method.

CONCLUSION

In the last chapter we saw that paradigms are the most foundational element to any logic, and, when carefully constructed, may give the outward appearance of neutrality.  It was however suggested that even the most neutral looking paradigms have often been reverse engineered to yield the "right" conclusion.  We saw scientists at the Wistar Institute shamelessly insisting that mathematics be reverse-engineered to produce results consistent with the theory of evolution when mathematical calculations did not produce the "right" result.  We saw these same scientists expressing with religious fervor their unswerving devotion to evolution, and that they were "comforted that evolution had in fact occurred" regardless of what evidence--mathematical or otherwise, might be adduced to challenge the evolutionary theory.  In this chapter we have seen the National Academy of Science frantically attempting to refute the creationist position by rejecting the historic scientific method of empiricism, falsification and simplicism, and replacing it with an ad hoc definition of science that is un-historical, unworkable, and, inasmuch as it would lead us back to a geocentric universe, is frankly idiotic.  No wonder C.S. Lewis wrote:  "What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."^[1]

If a theory is said to be "degenerating" or "moribund" when propped up only by ad hoc reformulations needed to address renegade data, how much more pathetic is an ad hoc reformulation of the entire scientific method specially designed to debunk the boogie man of creation-science?  The amicus curaie brief of the National Academy of Science does little to persuade the critical observer of the unscientific nature of creation-science.  All it really does is persuade the critical observer that the entire evolutionary theory is degenerating, and indeed moribund.

Chapter 7: Continued